9/11 Truth in the MSM--Rocky Mountain News

[petgoat]

"Recently I wrote a column that included an offhand comment about how I was pretty sure people who believed the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 terror attacks were pathetic lunatics living in basements, whose Web sites got 10 hits per day. I've since heard from many such people, assuring me that they don't live in basements, that they aren't crazy, and that their Web sites are very popular."


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/columnist/1,1299,DRMN_86_105,00.html


There's a comments section at the website.

[mirandapriestly]

1. Scary that he's a law professor

He sounds like an idiot. He states this as fact:
"If you're curious, you can also find plenty of stuff about how it was all really the work of satanists, or an elite secret society that was set up several thousand years ago by space aliens"
I have never seen either of those theories put forth, what a liar.

[Jazz2006]

2. He certainly got this part right:

First, the 9/11 Truth movement features a wide variety of claims, ranging from the quite plausible (the government's negligence prior to the attacks was not wholly displeasing to certain members of the Bush administration), to the wildly improbable (the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolitions), to the certifiably insane.

The latter category includes claims such as that 9/11 was a plot to steal $160 billion in gold buried under the World Trade Center (this theory is put forth in the film Loose Change, which has purportedly sold 100,000 copies); that no airplanes hit the towers (the theory here involves sophisticated holographic imaging equipment); and that the passengers supposedly killed on the four flights hijacked that day were all herded onto United Airlines Flight 93, which landed safely in Cleveland before the passengers were transferred to a top-secret NASA facility.

And there actually are people in the 9/11 "truth" movement who claim that it was the work of satanists and secret societies. Google it.

If memory serves, Jim Marrs, the author of "Inside Job" has given presentations on those theories, I believe. And Phillip Jayhan, the guy who runs LetsRoll911.org and who provided funding for Loose Change, espouses the satanist theories.

[pauldp]

3. I guess it depends on how you define satanist.

To some of the fundamentalist Christian persuasion, jerking off while lying naked
in a coffin in front of an old skeleton, surrounded by hooded figures, would be considered Satanic. But to the
good old Bonesman it's just another season for the inductees.

One man's satanic cult is another man's frat house.

[Jazz2006]

6. Agreed, but just read their own words, don't take my word for it.

[mirandapriestly]

4. Give links and quotes please

Phil Jayhan went to Bohemian Grove and he is always talking about the weird, creepy murder cult events he heard about in Northern California and he spoke to one of the people who testified in the Amber trial, but he isn't associating it with 9-11.
Of course you can find far out theories for anything, it doesn't mean that that that's what the majority of the people who question the official theory think. This is an obvious attempt to make people equate 911 skepticism with being weird and kooky, so they will be afraid to voice their questions. The theory of Islamic hijackers with box cutters fooling the US military, Norad, and the airlines is kookier than anything I've heard. But people believe it because the corporate news tells them it's true, it has that corporate logo stamp of approval on it, although they ignore the questions that have come up and there was never a trial (Moussaoui was a joke) or real attempt to hold anyone accountable.

[Jazz2006]

7. Do your own research for a change, miranda.

It's all there, just waiting for you.

And it isn't even hard to find, even though you might like to pretend that it is when it suits your purposes.

[mirandapriestly]

8. IOW, you're just making things up again

just checking, thought so..

[Jazz2006]

10. Not at all. Why are you so afraid of seeking out actual facts yourself?

They're out there, easily obtainable. You're a self-proclaimed "truthseeker", aren't you? If so, go forth and seek. That means actually getting off your butt and doing some actual research, no?

In this particular instance, it actually requires nothing more than internet searching, so it's even more bizarre that you're objecting to it so strenuously, since most tinhatters have never done and will never do any research beyond Google.

But rather than actually look it up yourself, you seem to prefer to post stupid and unfounded crap in an effort to deflect people from looking at actual facts and evidence, and in an attempt to pretend that anyone does or should believe that you and your tagteamers have any credibility whatsoever.

Guess what? You don't. And nobody other than tinhatters believe it for a second.

No rational reader is fooled by your silly antics and pretense. Surely, you must know that by now... you've been posting nonsense for a little over a year now, and nothing has changed.

[mirandapriestly]

13. That's funny

You have the opposite reaction when you ask someone to provide facts. You become hysterical and accuse them of making things up. Now when you are asked for proof, you tell me to "google it" which is odd because I recall a post by you saying that no real information was to be found from googling or the internet, so where did you get your information? Maybe you don't remember that or someone else might have been borrowing your account. Since you can't provide evidence for what you are saying I will conclude that you are bearing false witness to the individuals at whom you leveled your claims.

[BuddyYoung]

14. Speaking of opposite reactions, see post #99 on the thread titled:

"peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal re: 9/11"

[Bolo Boffin]

15. And you're trying to hijack this thread too about this?

Come on, Buddy, focus.

[wildbilln864]

16. I think what you said...

"No rational reader is fooled by your silly antics and pretense. Surely, you must know that by now... you've been posting nonsense for a little over a year now, and nothing has changed."

would equally apply to you as well Jz!

[Generarth]

11. Phil Jayhan seems to be Donald Schultz.

I know he's denied it, but I don't believe him.

It's a shame 9/11 Scholars has taken him on board.

[mirandapriestly]

5. But Satan WAS involved

You can even see him.

[Norrin Radd]

9. Perhaps Paul Campos can start a festival to counter The Burning Man

Project. He could call it "The Straw Man Project 2006."

"...For example, my own ignorance can be explained by such facts as that, as far as I could discover, The New York Times has run exactly one story that even mentions the movement's central claim: that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition (the story immediately dismissed this as absurd)..."

Yes, because we all know how credible The New York Times has been as of late; The NYT is fishwrap today, and yesterday. Is he suggesting that it is one of the few--if not the only--source he goes to for news? Pathetic.

[KJF]

12. 9/11truth comments on the article

The Ed says it's an:

"Instructive look into the recently 9/11-jostled mind of a bright but clueless liberal facing the wild Internet bazaar of "9/11 truths". His logical revulsion at holograms, satanists, passenger consolidation, etc. is expected and reasonable, and he does seem to want to sort hypotheses in a somewhat rational way (at least one that coincides with his own timid preconceptions and doesn't require any tedious research to sustain). Especially interesting is his concluding meditation on 9/11 scepticism's enduring media invisibility and how the right might have changed all that if Gore was president on that day."

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060719014552901